Dr Robert Price’s theorizing 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 as a Post-Pauline Interpolation but what about 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 – could they be interpolations?
Richard Carrier on 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16
This is where Paul refers to the end of the Jewish nation and its national cult, even though that occurred at least a decade after he is supposed to have died. In this passage Paul is made to say:
...in Judea...the Jews killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove out us, and pleased not God, and are contrary to all men; forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved; to fill up their sins always: but the wrath has come upon them to the uttermost.
Most scholars have concluded this was never written by Paul. The arguments are many, and accumulate to a conclusive case:
• Paul never blames the Jews for the death of Jesus elsewhere.
• Paul never talks about God's wrath as having come, but as coming only at the future judgment (see: Romans 2:5, 3:5-6, 4:15).
• Paul teaches the Jews will be saved, not destroyed (see: Romans 11:25-28).
• Paul was dead by the time the "wrath had come upon them to the uttermost" (the destruction of the Jewish nation and temple in 70 A.D.).
1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 is unusual…
Richard Carrier writes, 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 is very unusual in several ways. Not in any of Paul's 20,000 words, and dozens of discussions of the Jews, is anything like it. That immediately casts it into doubt. Paul blaming the Jews for the death of Jesus is simply unprecedented. Paul also never talks about the Jews as if he wasn't one of them (see: Galatians 2:15; 1 Corinthians 9:20; Romans 9:1-5, 11:1; Philippians 3:4-5). And Paul acknowledged Jews as members of his own church, so he wouldn't damn them as a group like this, and never does (see: 1 Corinthians 1:24, 12:13; 2 Corinthians 11:12; Romans 9:24, 10:12; on how this interpolation is undeniably--and uncharacteristically for Paul--Antisemitic, see the analysis again at Vridar).
Read Richard Carrier’s entire discussion here:
Richard Carrier on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35
Most experts again believe this is an interpolation. This passage has Paul command:
Let the women keep silence in the churches: because it is not permitted for them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also the law says. And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church.
We know this wasn't written by Paul because it directly contradicts what Paul says in the very same letter, where he actually gives rules for when women speak in church (in 1 Corinthians 11). So we can be sure someone else wrote this passage, probably influenced by the forgery of 1 Timothy 2 (where we find this misogyny repeated; notably in the authentic letters of Paul, such misogyny does not appear--it was a feature of later Christianity).
[NOTE: Modern Christians are troubled by this passage as it is considered 'anti-woman' by some and diametrically opposes the modern Christian's fallacious notion that Christianity is compatible with Western norms]
Christian defence of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is refuted by Carrier
Everyone concurs that the passage contradicts Paul's teachings in the very same letter. So the only rebuttal fundamentalists have is that Paul must be quoting his opponents here, and arguing against it, not actually issuing this command himself.
Let the prophets speak by two or three, and let the others discern. But if a revelation be made to another sitting by, let the first keep silence. For ye all can prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be exhorted; and the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets; for God is not a God of confusion, but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. Let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law. And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church. What!? Was it from you that the word of God went forth? Or came it unto you alone? If any man thinketh himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him take knowledge of the things which I write unto you, that they are the commandment of the Lord. But if any man is ignorant, let him be ignorant. Wherefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. But let all things be done decently and in order.
The argument is that the material in bold is a quotation of his opponents and that Paul is denouncing the statement. But this is illogical in several ways, not least being the fact that he doesn't denounce the statement. If he were, he would specifically say the statement is wrong or command them to let women speak in due order. No such remarks are present (obviously, because the interpolator intended us to think this was Paul's commandment).
It's rather lamely said the exclamation "What!?" alone constitutes a denunciation of the statement, which it is not (any author of the period would follow such an exclamation with a declarative sentence were that the case).
Moreover, that exclamation is not actually in the Greek. It's a modern translator's conjecture. So no argument can stand on its presence here. The word that's actually there is simply "or" (and it is exactly so translated everywhere else in Paul's corpus). Nor is indirect speech indicated here, as the argument requires it be: there is simply no grammatical structure indicating Paul is quoting his opponents, unlike other passages where he does (1 Corinthians 7:1, "concerning what you wrote..."; 15:12, "some among you say..."; 15:35, "some say..."; note that in 6:12 he's not quoting his opponents but himself: cf. 10:23 in light of 8:1-9:1 and 9:20-22).
Therefore the "quoting others" argument has no basis in the text itself and in fact goes against all the grammatical and rhetorical practices of the period generally and Paul specifically.
Read Richard Carrier’s entire discussion here:
Christians facing facts
Where does this leave Christianity? Not only is it proven that the Gospels are riddled with interpolations and thus we cannot be sure what the originals said but the work of the true founder of Christianity, a man who never met Jesus (Paul of Tarsus, aka Apostle Paul), is thought to have been tampered with too. The lying pen of the scribes…
Given all the research into the New Testament, can Christians really state with a straight face that the Bible is the inerrant word of God? No.
Amazingly, one group of believers in Jesus (p) stated well before modern scholarship (over a thousand years ago!) that the Bible is unreliable. Who were these people blessed with such knowledge that the “Holy Spirit inspired Christians” lack even today? The Muslims!
Become a Muslim if you love Jesus (p)
Sexism: Reason to change the Bible
New Testament Discussed